First you had Michael Weinstein’s AHF using their thrift stores to sell bareback porn, while all along assaulting other companies for not imposing condoms.

This new example of hypocrisy — or more better put, “hypo-TWAT-cy” — is a bit more seamy.

This is a pic that Michael Whiteacre just posted this morning at his Facebook page after attendingreceiving from someone attending a Porn Star Karaoke fundraising event in Burbank.

Looks like any old party image, right?? Except for who the exact participants are.

No, not the guy sticking out his tongue..he’s irrelevant.

Notice the guy almost obscured behind First Dewd, wielding the pen who’s autographing the very beautiful woman’s boobs. Yes, that grill is very recognizable: porn legend Ron Jeremy.

The woman in bliss getting her boobs signed by “The Hedgehog” might not be so recognizable at first…but once you look closely, it becomes a bit more clear who she is.

Three guesses, Clones.

Velicity Von?? Ahhhh…no.

Holly Halston??? Ehhhhhhhhhkkkkkkkk..wrong answer.

Vicky Vette?? Please..she lives clear on the other side of the country.

Would you believe me if I said that the correct answer was…Shelley Lubben???

Wait a damn minute, ‘Dog…Shelley Lubben?!?!? You mean the former porn actress turned born again Christian antiporn activist who preaches that porn women are “diseased” and that porn needs to be wiped off the face of the earth?? The woman who suffered (or so she claimed) so much physical and mental abuse (not to mention the herpes and the cervical cancer) at the hands of porn that she now preaches almost daily for its demise?? The woman who went before the UCLA panel on condoms, the Cambridge University debate team, and representatives of Congress speaking all emotionally about the absolute evil of porn and how all its women are simply victims of rape??

Yup…that would be that Shelley Lubben.

Apparently, her professed hatred of porn and her publically stated desire to eliminate it does not prevent her from being such a fangirl of Jeremy that she not only got him to whip out his…errr, Sharpie…to sign her boobs; but also managed to outbid the others for a dinner date with him. (No doubt, with all the funds she’s being paid with through her Pink Cross Foundation ministry.)

Now, those of you wanting to defend the Ministeress might say that what she does in her private life outside of her public ministry is still her business and none of our concern…and that even a born-again Christian deserves the right to party hearty now and then. And, usually, I’d agree with that.

Problem is, when someone whom has made her money and her public legacy hating on and trying to abolish other women’s rights to be porn performers and make choices of their own on how best to be performers, and when someone professes her fundamentalism such that anyone who dares to criticize her must be one of those evil “pornographers”, and that same someone gets caught getting her tit endorsed by the most well known dick in porn outside of John Holmes at a porn party??? Well….needless to say, that’s serious news.

Maybe she’s just out evangelizing, and she’s going to use that RJ sig on her tits as motivation from God to convert him out of the industry….though, it’d be kinda hard to accomplish that given Jeremy’s propensity to pimp himself in “Make your dick BIGGER!!!!!” ads.

Mike Whiteacre also noted that one of the invitees at that Porn Karaoke party was none other than Mr. Marcus, the Black male porn legend which Lubben (with help from a few others) had wanted to ambush at the UCLA panel discussion on condoms in porn last year. Gee, I wonder if she attempted to hit him up as hard as she did for RJ..maybe, to make up for lost time??

I’m just wondering what this will do for many of Lubben’s followers who were under the impression that she had long since left the porn world behind to do God’s work liberating women from their former slutty selves. I guess that, like Carrie Prejean before her, you just can’t keep your slutty instincts down for so long.

Not to mention, what all those White Supremacist fundies whom back her ministry say about her trolling for large Black cock?? (Allegedly, of course.)

In any rate…nice going, Ministress…you just earned yourself the title of Supreme Hypocrite….or, should I say, Hypo-TWAT. Enjoy your double life, madam.

Update (4-28-11): First off, Michael Whiteacre has informed me via comments that he was not at the infamous Porn Star Karaoke event where Shelley acted up; a freind who was there simply taped and photographed Lubben and sent the results to him. The text in this blog entry has been corrected to set everything straight.

And now, we have video proof as well, courtesy of Mike South; go right to his blog and/or his YouTube page for more witnessing of Ministeress Lubben…well, ministering to the porn faith.

It’s quite another thing when “journalists” who should know better drink the piss whole and CALLS it lemonade, then attempts to sell the stuff to others.

Apparently, the standards of journalism at the website known as The Daily Beast is more than a bit lacking, because they just pulled off a loony worthy of Andrew Breitbart.

The issue: the recent decision by the Obama Administration to dissolve the Obscenity Task Force that had been responsible for prosecuting people for the crime of selling and producing adlut sexually explicit material (more commonly known as “pornography”), and reduce the scope to prosecuting cases involving child exploitation and production of underage child porn rather than going after adult material.

The response of the usual antipornography witchhunters on the Religious Right has been well documented (see this space for a sample). The response upon certain “radical feminists” masquerading as “leftists” has also been duly noted.

And yet, it is too often seen and accepted amongst certain sectors of the media that the antiporn “feminist” segment is the sole voice on the Left for arguing about porn and its effects.

Never mind the history of liberals being for free expression and the Holy Grail of free speech, or the history of sexual liberation movements being far closer to the Left than the Right…some folks often can’t get it out of their heads that you can be critical of some elements of porn production or how some viewers react to it and still defend their right to consume and watch it without shame or ill effect.

Somebody needs to send that memo to the Daily Beast and columnist McKay Coppins…pronto.

On Friday, the Daily Beast posted this article (in twoparts) from Mr. Coppins titled “Obama’s Porn Problem With Liberals”, shouting the alarm about all the evils deeds done by Prez O through his Attorney General, Eric Holder, and the latter’s decision to deep-six the DOJ-OTF (and reconstitute porn prosecutions under another department within the DOJ).

The only problem with Mr. Coppins’ article: he only quotes ONE “liberal” as proof positive that “the Left” should be opposed to porn with the same intensity as the Right…if not for the same reasons.

But that one “liberal” he quotes is a doozy: none other than Wheelock College professor/antiporn “feminist” crusader/bullshitter cum laude, Gail Dines.

Now, Coppins’ political confusion and myopia might be based upon the fact that he himself is pretty much a right-winger on his own; he is listed in his bio page as also a contributor to Tucker Carlson’s screech site The Daily Caller (yes, same Bowtie Boy Carlson known for buying up a URL mocking Keith Olbermann, then using same to attempt to smear Olbermann during his breakup with MSNBC). He labels Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar (a Blue Dog moderate-conservative Democrat who was one of 42 Senators to sign a protest letter from the rabidly antiporn group Morality in Media opposing Holder’s efforts to shut down the OTF and calling for even more agressive efforts to shut down adult porn) as “left-wing”, and labels even more conservative Democrat California Senator Diane Feinstein, another signatore to the MIM letter, “a staunch liberal”.

Don’t believe me?? Quoteh from the man himself:

At first, it all seemed like another formulaic episode in the culture war: the religious right crusading against smut peddlers in the name of “family values”; liberals rolling their eyes at puritanical Republicans and their censorship-happy agenda. But a closer look at the events reveals a kink in the common narrative—and a potential shift in culture-war battle lines.

Earlier this month, 42 senators signed a letter urging Attorney General Eric Holder to step up enforcement of federal obscenity laws. Among the cast of mostly Republican signers, one name stood out: Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a staunch liberal from California, the de-facto porn capital of America. (Feinstein wasn’t available to comment for this story.)

She wasn’t alone: five other Senate Democrats, including Minnesota’s left-wing warrior, Amy Klobuchar, also signed the letter, and they were applauded by feminists, leftist lawyers, and liberal academics. Together, this increasingly vocal segment of progressives is making the case that hardcore porn flies in the face of cherished liberal causes—and that Democrats should be leading the charge to take down its distributors.

The fact that they were the only “staunch liberals” (out of 55 Senate Democrats, only 6 signed their names to this letter; the others happened to be the most right-wing Democrats in the Senate: Ben Nelson (NE), Joe Lieberman (CT), Mark Pryor(AK), and Bill Nelson (FL). I don’t think that anyone will be calling these fellows “staunch liberals” , heaven forbid “left-wing”, any time soon.

And then, there is the basic fact that Coppins fails to name or list any other “progressive” –feminist, lawyer, or academic — who would dare to support such a campaign against their “cherished” goals of free speech and free expression. Probably because no such people exist, other than within the hive mind of radical antiporn feminism or the absolute fringes.

But who needs others, when you have the intellectual weight of GAIL DINES on your side??

Coppins lovingly quotes all the usual Dines tropes against porn: 1) That porn basically diffuses and distorts women’s essential sexuality for the benefit of men to abuse and rape women with impunity; 2) That porn is innately racist in that it reinforces common stereotypes of Black men and women as dangerous mindless rapists (Black men) or “ghetto bitches” (Black women)…as if traditional conservative common culture hasn’t done enough of that; 3) that porn imposes excessive expectations of sex onto impressionable women and men and ultimately drives both to acts of perversion or even addiction to feed their “unnatural” desires rather than the assumed “true intimacy” of legitimate human love (marriage?? Monogamy??); and 4) it actually traps liberals into defending destructive behaviors that “limit” the legitimate free speech rights of others. (More on #4 later.)

Right off the bat we see where Coppins is going when he lovingly quotes in really big type the first words out of Dines’ mouth:

“To be anti-porn is a progressive principle.”

Riiiiight. And to be a part of the Tea Party is to be a freakin’ civil rights activist, too. And “Drill, Baby, Drill” really will kick our addiction to oil. And Rush Limbaugh really does care about the working poor. And…we will ultimately get to watch the sun rise over the West Coast.

But let’s dig deeper, shall we??

“To be anti-porn is a progressive principle,” says Dr. Gail Dines, author of the 2010 book Pornland. “The progressive position is that we’re opposed to anything that produces inequality, and porn absolutely feeds into sexual inequality—creates it, amplifies it, and justifies it.”

As a professor at Wheelock College, a liberal arts school in Massachusetts, Dines is not lacking for feminist credentials. She has devoted the majority of her scholarly research to exposing sexism, and frequently lectures on how the media promote gender bias. She has no patience for the trendy argument that porn actually promotes female empowerment. On the contrary, she argues, the violent brand of smut that the Justice Department is ignoring poisons the public perception of gender relations.

“It legitimizes the idea that men have all the power over women,” she says. “In pornography, women don’t need good housing and fair pay; all they need is body-punishing sex. They’re not human beings.”

Now, I’ve spent a whole forest of dead trees and assorted pixels explaining to you all why Dines’ concept of “antiporn feminist” activism is not only NOT the premier “progressive principle” she implies, but indeed the slippery slope to acceptance of right-wing fascism; so I won’t waste your time and space and rehash it here. I’ll just make the statement that someone who lovingly uses the term “smut” and “progressive” at the same time, and who sees even girl/girl, boy/boy, couples, and female solo sex scenes as equally guilty in imposing male power over women seriously needs to have their credentials questioned.

The main issue right now is how the people at The Daily Beast felt that this libel of “the Left” was considered suitable enough to be published without a bit of proofreading or review. Not even World Net Daily would publish crap like this without some guilt.

Of course, Coppins doesn’t completely rely on Gail Dines for his thesis; he does have some backup:

Dr. Pepper Schwartz, a sociology professor at the University of Washington, says that by glorifying violent sexual fantasies, hardcore porn makers can encourage naturally violent men to act on their urges: “That combination of explicit sexual scenarios and a proclivity for violence against women is combustible.”

The theme of porn (even the non-violent type that makes up the overwhelming majority of such material) enabling “violent sexual fantasies” which ultimately transfers into rape and sexual abuse of women is plastered all over Coppins’ article like horse droppings in a prairie. The fact that no positive correlation between consumption of porn and sexual abuse or violence has ever been found by anyone creditable (other than the usual right-wing cranks), or that religiously conservative/fundamentalist locales are far more likely to be centers of violence against women than regular porn consumers, doesn’t even enter Coppins’ mind.

Now, that doesn’t mean that men who are already presupposed to avts of violence against women might see specific kinds of porn dedicated to their particular rage and react in kind…but that’s quite a bit different from saying that porn transfers normal, healthy geeks into Ted Bundys and Unabombers. Based on that kind of illogic, you could say that Catholicism makes ordinary men into pedophiles.

Next, Coppins reworks Dines back into the debate to quote about how porn destroys healthy sex education:

Along the same lines, Dines says comprehensive sex education—long a rallying cry among liberals—is competing with hardcore porn sites to shape young boys’ attitudes toward sex.

“We know that at age 14, the vast majority of boys have looked at porn and probably masturbated to it,” says Dines. “Literally their first introduction to sex is sites like bangedbabbysitters.com. These aren’t adult men who can compare what they see to reality. They’re young and vulnerable.”

Notice how Dines’ position dovetails quite nicely with the fundamentalist Right’s stated position against government funded sex education outside of the traditional pillars of marriage and abstinence, transmitting the same fear of out-of-control boys ravishing young women at will. Of course, women learning about sex at a young age isn’t seen as quite a problem to Professor Dines…mostly because her assumption is that women are so pure that they aren’t capable of such dirty thoughts…or would be were it not for men imposing porn on them. I guess that that includes lesbians and solo masturbation/sex toy play too, madame??

And of course, gay male porn and its impact on impressionable men is simply ignored or taken as its own sin and issue.

The “porn is racist” meme is nextL

While racist depictions in mainstream media have dramatically declined over the years, Dines writes that contemporary pornography continues to “[get] away with a level of racism that is breathtaking in its contempt and loathing for people of color.” No stereotype is off-limits. Black women are depicted as mouthy ghetto-dwellers who need a dominant man to cure them of their “attitude.” Asian girls are subservient, obedient, and bred for male pleasure. Latinas are debased by their poverty, thus making them accessible to any man with a few bucks.

Given progressives’ historical role in the civil rights movement, Dines says, it’s absurd that the left would stand up for distributors of such racially offensive material.

This one is a definite howler (though not nearly as riotously inducing of laughter as what follows next). So, racist depictions in mainstream media have actially DECLINED in comparison to porn?? You mean, like, those emails depicting President Obama as a young chimp?? Or, the frequent Birther jokes?? Or, the recent statements of certain Tea Party stalwarts that young Black men would be an excellent replacement for Latino “illegals” as slaves….errrrrrrrrr, farm workers?? Or…the recent survey just released that noted that nearly a majority of Mississippi Republicans believe the the Confederacy should have won the Civil War, and close to a plurality of Mississippi TeaPublicans believe that interracial marriage should be illegal?? But yeah, the size of Black cock in porn being stuffed in the orfices of White women is far more dangerous and far more racist than that!!

And oh my, the projection here could power an IMAX theatre!! Asian women as submissive?? (Tell that to Jizz Lee or Ava Devine or Midori.) Latina women reduced to their poverty and inately sluttable?? (Paging Nina Mercedez, Akira Lane, Gabby Quinteros??) Even when they specificaly WANT and openly DESIRE to play the slut willingly?? Oh, wait, that’s the MEN talking for them..we all know that “cumdumpsters” can’t think for themselves…only antiporn ‘feminists” and people like McKay Coppins have the power to speak FOR them!!!

But even that pales to the pinnacle of Coppins’ argument for antiporn “liberalism”: that it actually represses legitimate free speech!! Read forth and laugh, Clones:

Traditionally, what’s drawn liberals to defend hardcore porn is a passion for the First Amendment. But John Kang, a law professor at St. Thomas University in Florida, argues that it’s precisely this commitment to civil liberties that should motivate liberals to crack down on distributors.

“It’s fashionable in the contemporary Supreme Court to justify protection of violent hardcore pornography as the ability of men to realize themselves through some artistic format,” Kang says. “But this is nothing but pure, pathological violence against women.”

He echoes Schwartz’s concern that such material can motivate abuse, assault and even rape: “If enough mentally unstable men watch this and want to recreate it, this actually represents a clear and present danger against women”—a constitutional exception to the First Amendment.

Or to put it another way, allowing the freedom of violent expression could suppress the freedom of innocent victims. As Kang wrote in a 2008 paper, this is a case where “the free speech of men silences the free speech of women.”

I will now give you a couple of minutes to get the laughter out of your system.

,,,,

There now…feel better??

First off, St. Thomas University is a very fundamentalist Catholic university that specializes in promoting this kind of antiporn/antisex claptrap. To call it “progressive” is like calling a cantaloupe an orange.

Secondly…there is simply no “clear and present danger” clause in the Constitution of the United States when it comes to speech and expression. If the Ku Klux Klan can be protected for marching through a public speech and howling anti-Jewish, anti-Black, and other forms of smack, and if the Westboro Baptist Church can be protected for their antigay protests as long as they don’t penetrate the sacred grounds of the actual funerals, then I’m guessing that even depictions of consenting adults carrying out scenes featuring explicit sex are still protected by the Bill of Rights. (In fact, only child porn is the one area of sexual speech that is held not to be protected…and that is due to the underage factor, not the sex.)

As much as I loathe Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, I don’t want to live in a world where even they can be prosecuted and put in jail merely for what they say…I’d rather have a world where I and the rest of their victims can fight back with equal words to say that they are simply full of shit. Because the same forces that would love to lock them up can use the same powers to lock ME up as well. That , Mr. Coppins, is what seperates a true liberal/Leftist and a legitimate civil libertarian, from an tyrant…even one who pretends his or herself to be such a “progressive”.

Thirdly…”unstable men” have been able to rape and pillerage women from time imortal without the aid of sexual imagery….and they will be able to do so even if all such content was wiped off the face of the earth. But, the vast majority of men (and women) who consume porn and yet manage to remain quite stable and healthy shouldn’t be forced to lose their rights and be the target of a smear campaign leading up to castration just because a few “unstable men” aren’t able to get above themselves.

Finally, those who happen to be the real victims of those “unstable men” who do commit real acts of violence against women (or anybody else, for that matter) do have a very powerful means of justice and remediation. It’s called, simply, the judicial system and the police.

And quite frankly, it’s not “the pornographers” who are the biggest detriment to rape and sexual assault victims getting justice; it’s the “slut shaming” and traditional “she got what she deserved by acting/looking like a slut” attitude that permeates the core of dominant conservative culture…and which happens to also be the foundation of most antiporn attitudes as well. After all, there must be a reason why right-wingers seem to be the biggest consumers watchers of porn…and it’s not because of the articles, either.

Finally, we get the knockout punch from Coppins and Dines:

But porn opponents on the left, such as Dines, are characterized by their evangelism, and they’re hopeful that the lower the porn industry sinks, the more their message will resonate. In the end, she says, the progressive case against hardcore porn has little to do with the Judeo-Christian views of sexuality espoused by the right.

“Corporate-owned media is designed to legitimize economic inequality,” says Dines. “I would argue porn does the same thing when it comes to sex. You want sex to be fun and meaningful. You want your sexual autonomy to be your own, not some corporation’s.” Spoken like a true liberal.

WOW. A right-winger determining who is a “true progressive”. Of course, Coppins is the one who called Klochobar “left-wing” and DiFi “an unabashed liberal”, so maybe we can forgive him for that. But Dines knows better, and she has no excuses.

I’m as much an opponent of corporate-owned media as anyone calling himself a progressive or Leftist or liberal; and I support without doubt sexual self -autonomy. On the other hand, though, I understand corporate control to be based not on mere words, but on their actions; and people making sexually explicit media for their own pleasure does NOT necessarily fit into the kind of harm done by “corporate speech”. When the Koch Brothers spends their millions of dollars to pay legislators to pass anti-worker and anti=poor laws that takes away their hard earned cash and fills their already overstuffed vaults, that is a real crime and a violation. When Larry Flynt uses his hard earned money to pay a model to take off her clothes and perform live, consensual, and mutually pleasurable sex with an equally consenting and horny model/actor, then that is quite a bit different. Likewise, someone casting their vote for a Tea Party Republican (or, for that matter, a neoliberal Blue Dog Democrat) whom enables similar policies is complicit in the crime against working people. Someone who purchases a copy of Who’s Nailin’ Palin??? Not so much, I gather.

Yet, people like Gail Dines and pseudo journalists like McKay Coppins would tell us that the man or woman who makes and/or views porn for his/her own pleasure and that of the participants is far more dangerous and far more worthy of not only censure, but full scale state repression, than any capitalist or media hound who exploits people ever would be…or for that matter, any real rapist or pedophile. To them, this is “true” liberalism/Leftism.

To me and other legitimate Leftists and progressives, it is another term: pure horseshit. And it left unchallenged it will become another all too real term: full scale fascism.

If Gail Dines is a progressive, then we might as well call Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann feminists, too. Too bad McKay Coppins can’t tell the difference..and that The Daily Beast is too lazy to remind him.

Well…it seems that Lydia Lee isn’t the only one of late who has to deal with antiporn trolls who just don’t know when to stop.

I recently came upon a comment that was posted in the moderation queue for the Blog of Pro-Porn Activism, which I contribute to and manage, to the most recent post by Ernest Greene. who happens to be both the husband of Nina Hartley and one of the founding members of what used to be the AIM Foundation (now reborn as AIM Medical Associates), on AIM’s potential survival in the wake of the efforts of Pornwikileaks, Cal-OSHA, and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) to undermine their testing regime and impose mandatory condom usage on all performers. As you will see, the comment has a particularly nasty POV regarding performers rights, and is mostly nothing more than the usual inflammatory smack heard more often from antiporn activists.

Using the agreed-to rule (at least, agreed upon by the contributors of BPPA) that direct attacks on performers not be given that platform to poison the debate, I decided not to approve the comment for publication, but rather place it in the spam folder for safekeeping. Nevertheless, I believe that the comment says so much about the mentality of those who wish to impose condom mandates that it deserves a response from me using this space. BPPA is designed to be a safe zone for performers and professionals and activists, and not suitable for debates or even smackdowns….but in this space, I can call a spade a spade and a whackjob a whackjob.

Here is the comment in its entirity….and naturally, the commentor is “Anonymous”:

As with any industry, where can we go to get a list of injuries related to occupational work in porn valley?

How many injuries that required surgery? How many non-HIV disease transmissions?

Also, does AIM test for heroin, oxy or other narcotics to ensure that drug addicts aren’t being exploited?

OSHA standards? Sounds like a VERY good idea. What other job does being beaten, choked and having several inches in width shoved up your ass while being called a “stupid cunt”?

No doubt Ernest will be responding with some diatribe about prudery and christian fanatics, or dread femi-nazis.

Meanwhile… let’s get back to OSHA standards for all workers and stop letting industry pimps pretend they give a rats’s ass about women’s health or how fucked up it is that millions of people are jerking off to images of women getting abused.

We wouldn’t want to be “sex negative” or anything… So bitches, open up an say aahhhh… because whores have no rights. Thank you… “sex positivity”

I have my ideas about who would be suitable for writing this crap…but for now, I’ll begrudginly give “Anon” his right to his mis-identity. And that’ll be the last bit of respect he’ll get.

Let’s break it down by sentence, shall we??

As with any industry, where can we go to get a list of injuries related to occupational work in porn valley?

Gee, I don’t know…does OSHA allow for a list of injuries to, say, coal miners suffering from black lung, or workers of nuclear power plants who risk getting cancers from radiation leaks?? And, more importantly, why should it be assumed that OSHA (whether the Cali branch or the national affiliate) should be informed about every single injury ever done to a porn performer in or out of his/her job??

No one is saying that there shouldn’t be some minimal standards of safety during porn shoots. The issue is whether or not the standards that Cal-OSHA would impose — which would include not only condoms but also dental dams and in some cases even goggles and face shields — would be even effective or even overkill in the name of “protecting” performers…including those majority of performers whom have proven themselves not to be needing that extreme kind of “protection” that our Anon wants. Or..whether or not this is simply abusing a group of people — namely, sex workers and porn performers — merely to get paid off their suffering and exploitation as “vectors of disease”.

Besides that, what sort of injuries would Anon wish to chronicle?? STI’s which occur in a much greater rate in the general population than in porn (unless (s)he happens to believe that porn is indeed the incubator of all sexually transmitted diseases)?? Yeast infections?? Menstrual blood?? Mere cuts and bruises?? Or, should we hold out for the REAL stories of full scale mass throat and anal rape, or the super secret snuff films that we know are murdering women every hour on the hour on porn sets daily??

I’m so sure that Cal-OSHA, even in these times of severe budget crises in the state government, will be perfectly capable of tracking down and prosecuting such evils..or simply resolving them by jamming a condom down the performer’s throat. Yeah, that’ll work well…never mind the fact that most porn is nowadays done for home sites and driving AIM out of business and the industry out of the safety and continuity of the current testing regime would simply force performers into much more dangerous and less regulated situations. Not to mention, putting people out of work. But, maybe that’s Anon’s point all along.

How many injuries that required surgery? How many non-HIV disease transmissions?

Also, does AIM test for heroin, oxy or other narcotics to ensure that drug addicts aren’t being exploited?

That’s really funny…because by law AIM is required to test only for HIV and herpes (though they did offer testing for other STI’s upon request. There is no standard for testing for other narcotics…and nor should there be in the first place. Maybe Anon may have missed this, but most porn consumers and performers want to be clean and sober, as most drugs tend to depreciate the wanted experience of sexual pleasure. It’s kind of hard to deliver lines when you are stoned or whacked out on heroin or meth, and especially not so easy to maintain your erectile “edge” and shoot on cue when you are incapacitated by alcohol or any other controlled substance. In most porn sets I know, there are 5 women and 2 men in wait if any performer turns up not at his best to replace him/her…that tends to kick out the drugged out better than any testing regimen.

Only someone who’s never even been to a porn shoot — or one of Shelley Lubben’s or Gail Dines’ mindless clones — would insinuate that porn performers are inately drug addicts. I guess we can place Anony in both levels??

OSHA standards? Sounds like a VERY good idea. What other job does being beaten, choked and having several inches in width shoved up your ass while being called a “stupid cunt”?

Try almost every other job, asshole. Women outside of porn have been beaten and choked for decades, and plenty of women have been raped anally without the need for or assistance of porn. Many more women have also willingly and safely enjoyed “having several inches in width” stuffed up their asses (does that include dildos and butt plugs, too, Anony??)..and I’m so sure that they would appreciate as well Cal-OSHA’s attempt to protect them from their own desires and take away their right of free will.

And as for calling them “stupid cunts”?? Funny, but you don’t seem to have a problem with women being called such in the context of non-sexual non-consensual relationships, do you?? Where are you when Gail Dines breaks out the “cumdumpster” card?? Or, when Ministeress Lubben reverts to calling porn performers (at least, those who don’t immediately faint to their knees and worship her as ROXYY!!!…errrrrr, I mean, Saint Shelley of Assisi, bringing God’s salvation and rescue to all ex-sluts everywhere) “diseased”, “prostituted”, and incapable of free will or thought?? And, where are you when right-wingers resort to the same epithet to demonize and stigmatize not only women in porn, but ALL women not following the pristine path of “modesty” and marriage??

But hey, Anonymous doesn’t want to insult porn women (actually, (s)he does, only (s)he wants to mask her hatred under the cloak of protection and human concern)…(s)he only wants to “save” them by allowing the steady hand of OSHA to impose “modest” standards and to force them to use condoms in their scenes..because that’s how (s)he will either force their users to use condoms themselves through “role modeling” (If the only thing the stupid proles see is people driving red cars, then they will themselves buy red cars, and red car dealers and owners will rake in the prosperity!!!), or the “industry” will simply wilt out of existence altogether, and the romance (and ignorance) media market will bloom a thousand flowers again from elimination of the competition.

No doubt Ernest will be responding with some diatribe about prudery and christian fanatics, or dread femi-nazis.

Meanwhile… let’s get back to OSHA standards for all workers and stop letting industry pimps pretend they give a rats’s ass about women’s health or how fucked up it is that millions of people are jerking off to images of women getting abused.

Ah, yes….the old radfem boilerplate, concentrated in one sustained bowel movement. Refer to a male pornographer as an “industry pimp”. Raise one more time the “Owwwwwwwww….they called us ‘antisex prudes’ and ‘femi-Nazis” again!!!” canard. (And of course, also the “Christian fanatics” addedum as a bonus, completely washing away the collusion between antiporn feminists and right-wing antifeminist fundamentalists in hating women who insist on their right to enjoy sexually explicit media on their own terms.)

And, of course, the usual smack of “fucked up” men jerking off to “women being abused” because we all know how much women are abused and raped and horrified by such things as sperm in the face, or a dick in the ass, or even a dick in her…..mouth. And, we all know that women are waaaaaay too pure to even have a hint of sexual autonomy to jill off to such “abuse”…right, Belladonna?? Cameron Diaz?? Carrie Prejean?? Sharron Angle?? Ms. Bueller?? Ms. Bueller??

And the final coup de’resistance of this inanity:

We wouldn’t want to be “sex negative” or anything… So bitches, open up an say aahhhh… because whores have no rights. Thank you… “sex positivity”

The addition of that attempted insult only makes our Anony look like an anttporn hack. Actually, jackass, we who call ourselves “sex-positive” believe that “whores” actually have many rights….the same rights and responsibilities to protect themselves from unwanted diseases and injury as any other person. As I said at the beginning, the debate about condoms is NOT about whether performers should or should not have the right to insist on them if they so desire; it is well agreed that they should. (You do know that Ernest Greene has been a long time advocate for performer choice and for not punishing performers for wanting condom use, right, Anony?? Or, are you so dense not to even have read his own words??) It is all about whether imposing condoms in porn shoots at the risk of both harming performers more and costing them their livelihood (because it is proven fact that condomized porn simply doesn’t sell to the overall public, other than a very narrow demographic), and whether the push for a condom mandate is simply an invented porn panic using the bodies of porn performers as political pinatas for the greed and benefit of certain parties.

I have been a commentator and fan of the adult sexual media for pretty close to 10 years now.

I’ve seen porn starlets and stars come and go; some better than others, some prettier than others; some more successful than others.

Some get in it for the quick thrill of the fast money and the easy sex; then fade out never to be heard from again. A few stick around avd become professionals, even icons, whose personas and performances become frozen into the deepest fantasies of fans forever.

A few do become victims of their successes, getting caught up in the fast life of too much money too quick, and they suffer the consequences of their excesses.

Most of them, though, generally make their money, do their damage, live out their fantasies and dreams, and then decide that they’ve done enough and move on to different phases of their lives…attempting to become just regular folk living their lives.

Of course, the stigma attached to performing active sex on stage or screen or online follows them throughout the rest of their lives. It can be anything from a positive that drives their ambitions, to an albatross that feeds popular prejudice that denies them more “legitimate” employment.

In a truly progressive and sane world, their profession wouldn’t even matter…they would be judged as any other person would ask to be judged: by their deeds and actions and their ethical treatment of people.

Unfortunately, we are far removed from that world…and even in 2011 it is still considered perfectly OK to condemn a woman or a man (mostly, the former) for having a sex life not redeemed by the usual conservative stereotypes.

Such is the case with the practice of “forced outing” a performer who would rather keep her/his private life/information out of publc view.

Forced outing is an issue that has long vexed sexual communities; with the conflict between exposing the hypocrisy of those who publically condemn and seek to repress nonviolent, consensual sexual behavior or media depictions thereof while privately partaking in the same behavior they would condemn in others; and respecting the fundamental right of privacy. It can be a tool of forceful social change when done properly; but it can also be, when taken out of control, a tool of social destruction.

In the case of Pornwikileaks.com, it’s definitely the latter, in my view.

The prototype, naturally, is the highly controversial and successful Wikileaks site that has been both praised and derided for revealing corporate and governmental crimes and misdemeanors.

The Pornwilileaks version, however, has a much darker and more sinister motive….laced with liberal amounts of racism, misogyny, utter hatred of performers…and especially deep, entrenched homophobia. Their “About” page practically leaps out the page with gay hatred; stating that their primary objective is

“To get the gays out of straight porn and illegal gay pimps that have ruined porn and shut it down making condoms mandatory by the government now. The fag loving has got to stop. California is full of gay Mexicans and now they can even marry which is so wrong.”

Now, all of you know my opposition to the condom mandate as proposed by groups like the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), and backed by people such as Michael Weinstein and Shelley Lubben. My opposition is based on respect for the performers’ right of free choice and the fact that the existing system of testing and prevention mostly designed and run by AIM has done as effective a job that can be done under the circumstances. I didn’t say that the policy was perfect, only that it was effective, and that forcing condoms down performer’s throats would be not only counterproductive, but also highly ineffective.

Yet, for all their professing of wanting to “save” porn, they really have a strange way of showing their it.

Their site claims to have the relevant information of over 14,000 performers, including their real names, current residential addresses, phone numbers, and even medical information. They boast that they would acquire and reveal information on performers’ medical condition, including highly illegally obtained information on a performer’s STI status.

The site also boasts of a section called “Category High Risk HIV”, in which they place people which they describe as “either gay or [you] fuck fags”.

And how ironic that they attempt to perceive themselves as opposing the condom mandate, when their actual acts in developing their “database” depends almost entirely on destroying the one organization standing in the way of imposing that mandate…namely, AIM.

You see, the reason Pornwikileaks has such a vast database of illegally pilfered information is because one of their agents were able to somehow break into AIM’s database of confidential medical information…thusly making that info available for public posting everywhere.

And then there is the case of a man named Donny Long, whom has been rumored to be the front man behind Pornwikileaks. Long was a former porn performer who broke from the industry about two years ago, but not before launching everything from a website to a message board casting all kinds of fury against nearly everyone. He has developed a reputation as a misantrope and a troll who basically uses every means necessary to out performers he doesn’t like, and he has often used Twitter as his chosen weapon until he got banned due to complaints of stalking from those performers targetted. The language of PW is pretty much a mirror of some of the smack that Long has spread in the past in other venues. (For the record, Long has denied that he is the creator of Pornwikileaks, though he does defend its overall mission.) Opponents and victims of Long’s wrath have formed their own website, DonnyLongIsAConvictedFelon.com, to counter his claims and correct the reacod.

Why is that interesting?? Because it wasn’t the last time that AIM had their database hacked into and information released to the public.

Remember the case of Desi and Elli Foxx?? They were the mother/daughter performer/sex worker team which filed a public lawsuit against AIM claiming that the latter didn’t do enough to protect their private info from being released to a previous forum which predicated Pornwilileaks. (Their case was settled out of court.) It was only a coincidence that the group most aggressively pushing the lawsuit just so happened to be the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, who aggessively favors the condom mandate and who would benefit the most from getting AIM out of the business of testing performers. Right…only a coincidence.

Another “coincidence” to ponder?? When gay/bi performer Cameron Reid (aka Derrick Burts) revealed himself to be “Patient Zeta”, the performer who tested positive for HIV in the scare last year, it was that very same Donny Long forum who, claiming to refute his charges that he contracted HIV on the set of a mainstream video, (allegedly) put out a YouTube video of Burts with fellow gay performer James Jameson, as proof positive that Burts contracted HIV directly from “those fags”. Jameson, for his part, flatly denies that, even going as far as stating that he is HIV-negative and has been his entire life. Interestingly enough, Burts/Reid found his way to the reach of AHF via some contracts, and now he is their biggestbooster, as well as pushing the condom mandate while soundly criticizing AIM for not doing enough to help him during his time of need.

Once again, this may be pure coincidence, or it may be just a sign that Donny Long and Pornwikileaks might be in cahoots with AHF, Shelley Lubben, and certain other antiporn groups out to basically dissect the industry for its own ends..even if unwitting allies. I wouldn’t put it against the latter scenario..though it’s probably more the former.

The obvious issues arisen from this is whether or not AIM is a victim of a malicious racist hack bent on their destruction, or a serial bungler who doesn’t know how to handle sensitive information (as former porn director/agent Mike South has written in his analysis), or perhaps even a secret participant in the whole chirade to silence those like AHF who want to overthrow them and impose the condom mandate (as some commentators over at the LukeIsBack porn gossip blog have suggested).

But, while that question fleshes itself out, there is a much bigger issue of how those who perform in porn and sex work are seen by the world as large. Unfortunately, in some mainstream venues, the idea that porn stars and prostitutes and even women who gambol in sex for personal pleasure can be seen as fully normal and human seems to be a very foreign principle.

Apparently, Christopher isn’t a fan of porn, and that’s his right and his perogatime…but what he says about porn performers being outed against their permission speaks volumes about his disrespect and utter loathing for them….even while he probably jerks off watching them.

For some reason, I am reminded of Eric Schmidt’s dictum.

You know, the one that went something like: “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.”

It comes to mind because someone whose motivations seem slightly troubling has taken it upon himself to be the Julian Assange of porn.

For there now exists a site called PornWikiLeaks, on which, as you might be able to imagine, certain intimate details of porn stars are displayed for all to see.

The site doesn’t display diplomatic messages from one porn star to another. Instead, it attempts to offer a comprehensive revelation of who these stars really are.

Riiight. Because we all know that women who do porn are really diseased sluts and nuts who fall to their knees at the first sight of hard cock, right Christopher?? So, we have every right to know every nook and cranny of what they do, who they do, where they do it, and what disease they catch while they do it. After all, we can’t have them damn fags and them “jigaboos” out there polluting normal people with AIDS and other diseases..’ya know, Verne???

And…it’s only “slightly troubling” but otherwise totally acceptable for a rogue agent like Donny Long to basically harrass, stalk, and potentially abuse women and men who perform in porn merely because he has a racist/sexist/homophobic fetish, and because he sucked so bad as an aspiring agent?? All because…well, they’re evil slutty porn girls?? How touching.

However, many of those who earn an often meager income from their carnal knowledge don’t really want their neighbors to know what they do to pay the rent. Moreover, some have left the industry in order to become elementary school teachers or accountants.

So one can only imagine that when PornWikiLeaks reveals not merely their real name, but also address, pictures of their family, and phone numbers, they might just be a little upset.

Oh dear…maybe becuse it’s non of those neighbor’s damn business what they do?? Or, because the stigma attached to being a porn performer or an erotic actress (unless your name happens to be Kim Kardasian or Paris Hilton or Carrie Prejean) is such that even outright repudiation of your past doesn’t prevent you from total embarrassment or even removal of your job and livelihood if your past becomes revealed?? Or, maybe, Chris believes PW to be an excellent way to score a quick and easy lay, since obviously these “sluts” are incapable of being human enough to say “No”??

And besides that, there is this assumption that most normal people are entitled to the right of privacy, of not having either the government or any business entity going into their panty drawers or bedrooms or personal information without their permission and approval But, we all know that sluts, like gays, illegals, inner city Black drug addicts, and other cancers of straight White American society, aren’t worthy of having normal people’s rights, don’t we?? We don’t want Big Government in our medicine cabinets or our uteri…but them other people?? No problem.

There is also a suggestion that it is the creator’s intention to reveal the STD status of every single porn star, although this hasn’t actually happened yet.

But where did PornWikiLeaks get this information? At least some of the leaked data may have come from a database at AIM Medical Associates, a company that routinely tests porn stars for STDs.

AIM told NBC Los Angeles that it is investigating. However, PornWikiLeaks has been going since December, so the investigation might simply be related to the sudden publicity the site is enjoying.

Still, AIM believes it has been violated just as much as the U.S. government. Its spokeswoman, Jennifer Miller, told the Beast: “I can’t stress enough, we’re victims of a crime. Just like the Pentagon and the FBI, we have been victimized and hacked. We are investigating and we will press all charges.”

Oh, but who asked them?? They’re just the enabalers of the diseased and vapid sluts who simply don’t want to be revealed to be doing their dirty deeds…and besides, who the hell are they to equate themselves to the awesome power of the Pentagon and FBI under assault by the original Wikileaks??

Now, it has been noted that PW has pilfered from a variety of sources to build their “database”, not only from AIM…even though it has been confirmed that much of the medical info and a large portion of the other personal info is straight from AIM’s database, which is indeed shared with porn studios as a means of screening out those who might by HIV+ or otherwise affected with STI’s. However, it is also a fact that by law AIM is forced to immediately turn in any information about someone testing positive for HIV to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health Services…which just so happens to be one of the agencies most motiviated to oust AIM and impose their condom mandate, along with the AHF and the state offices of Cal-OSHA. Not to mention the aformentioned suit by Mimi and Desi Foxx against AIM for not protecting their medical records from being revealed; and a later suit filed by AHF and LACDPH calling for AIM to release to them records about performers possibly linked to the HIV porn scare of 2009. Maybe AIM does have serious issues with handling personal data…but that doesn’t excuse stealing their data and outing performers against their will.

It should also be noted that the 2257 laws imposed by the Federal government also require porn individuals and production companies to maintain detailed information about every performer for immediate release to government officials (the latter motivated by the myth of “underage children” getting into the industry following the Traci Lords debacle during the late 1980’s; reinforced by the latest scandal in Colombia concerning current superstar Lupe Fuentes). Given the ease to which such information can be accessed and even traded, maybe it would make it quite a bit easier for any hacker to get sensitive information and use it to his own profit against the performer’s interests??

But, again, that’s a concern for normal people who are assumed to be fully human, not porn girls, sex workers, or other dirty sluts. At least, not to Chris Malyszczyk.

The porn industry is undergoing considerable changes, especially with the huge proliferation of free online porn. Will the existence of PornWikiLeaks make some think twice about their chosen means of making money?

Or is the expectation now entirely reasonable that anything you do, anywhere, at any time could–at any moment–be revealed online for all the world to see, know, and, of course, judge?

In other words….does the Bill of Rights apply to everyone….or are porn performers exempeted merely because of their chosen profession??

In response to such claptrap, an actual sex worker who was outed by PornWikileaks named Maggie Mayhem was moved to post at her blog a thorough ass-kicking rebuke of Chris Malyszczyk and his slut shaming. The entire piece is worthy of a read, but I will give some snippage.

Let’s clear a couple of things up, hater. First and foremost this information was obtained from private medical records. It isn’t a coincidence that one of the major ways that we protect our health and the health of our partners was sabotaged. It’s a clear message: you are not allowed to have both a non-traditional sex life and good health at the same time. This was an act of terrorism. According to your words, hater, we should just sit back and accept this as proper order of the world. We should just accept that mainstream medical care excludes us and degrades us and that if we develop a community model of care that people will do everything they can to shut it down. I guess we should have thought about that when we tried to pay our rent, have a relationship, be part of a family, or go on living our lives like anyone else. We should have just known that someone would eventually think that they were saving California from “Mexicans and gays trying to get married,” by illegally accessing our medical records and posting them on the internet with our real names and an incitement for harassment against us.

Whether or not our industry is conventional has nothing to do with what happened. For example, I think that it is unethical to set up sweatshops in developing nations to exploit the local labor force. If I hacked into the HMO database for a major corporation with factories in developing nations and published the names and private information of thousands upon thousands of low level employees who worked for that corporation at any point in time on the internet alongside calls for harassment against them I would be immediately denounced as a deranged criminal who must be stopped immediately and that would be absolutely, 100% accurate. No one w0uld be debating whether or not those employees should be ashamed of working in retail. No one would suggest that the reason why they dropped their surname or opted for nickname on their employee badge was because they were trying to hide from their occupation. No one would speak as though they should have known that sooner or later someone would inevitably hack into their medical records and post their badge name next to their full legal name alongside libelous language and calls for harassment against them. We would solely focus on the actions of the deranged criminal and discuss ways that we can prevent that kind of illegal and dangerous behavior from happening again.

Like most haters, you’re getting defensive about the fact that people are calling you out for victim blaming. The opening and closing of an essay is prime real estate in a piece of a writing. It’s what people notice first and what they walk away with at the end. This essay contained 538 words. The opening and closing (103 words) constitute just under 1/5 (just about 20%) of the total essay length and both are dedicated to questioning whether or not porn performers should feel shame about what they do for a living rather than what actually happened or any form of compelling analysis. The reason that people are receiving this as victim blaming is because you opened your essay by saying, “For some reason, I am reminded of Eric Schmidt’s dictum. You know, the one that went something like: ‘If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.’” It communicates quite a bit about your priorities that you opened and closed your writing with a sentiment of judgement and shame.

Amen and a-women on that, Maggie.

Sad to say, many performers whom I follow and respect — and some I even worship — have found themselves on that list of outed performers. In fact, anyone whom has used AIM’s services — whether they be in porn or not — have probably had their privacy breached by this hacking, and they are suspect to being violated at any tiime. (Mike South has posted at his blog somemeans to which performers who think they ave been violaated can act to get their names removed, or to get PW shut down, and porn legal scholar Michael Fattarousi has also acted to bring legal means against Long to end the harrassment and stalking. Efforts by Long to intimidate and expose performers on Twitter have mostly failed in the wake of strong response by the performers themselves.) The resulting tragedy and its impact on AIM and on the current regime of HIV testing remains to be resolved; whether it turns out to be the concluding act in the AHF/CalOSHA/LACDHS takeover of porn testing and the condom mandate is still well up in the air.

However the results go, though, it still reinforces what to me has been one of my fundamental objectives that has driven my support for and respect of women who take the risks and enjoy the benefits of performing in adult explicit sexual entertainment: that they are treated as nothing less than full human beings, worthy of respect, free will, and accountability for their actions.

No woman — not even Shelley Lubben or Michelle Bachmann,– or no man — not even Glenn Beck or Rush Liimbaugh, however I may loathe their political and social views — deserves to be treated as any less than fully human. Maybe some day, we will apply that standard to porn/sexwork. Some day.

[See also Violet Blue’s rundown of the whole controversy at her Tiny Nibbles blog here. and also FurryGirl (of Feminisnt) with her perspective on how to protect your privacy from the 2257 laws here. Danny Wylde of Trev West Coast Fiction also has a nice smackdown of Donny Long over at his blog as well.]

[Maymay over at Maybe Maimed, But Never Harmed has a marvelous post now up on why PornWikileaks simply can’t wear Wikileaks’ jock strap. Check it out here.]

Part of the hazards of being pro-porn (or at least anti-antiporn) is that you tend to get some interesting emails from the other side.

Most of them are of the usual harmless pontification saying how wrong I or any defender of porn is, how I misunderstand the message and the “truth” about antiporn.

A few get somewhat personal, accusing me of abetting any type of evil sexual freakery, if not being a sexual freak myself. Those usually go to the infamous File 86 or spam file, since none of them are bright enough or know me enough to lecture me on my personal sexual habits. (Which remains, of course, my business and none of theirs.)

Fortunately, though, other than a few blasts from some Brit radfems (hello, Witchy Woo!!!) that have attempted to go nuclear but fizzled, I never had to face the kind of stupidity and lameness.

Unfortunately, some dear friends of mine aren’t so fortunate. One such friend, former porn/erotica performer Lydia Lee (the former Julie Meadows) endured such stupidity, that she had to post about it at her blog yesterday. And, it’s such a whopper that I had to offer reinforcement.

As most of you well know, Lydia/Julie has been mounting a truth campaign for the past year of so against the rantings and ravings of antiporn Christian fundamentalist activist Shelley Lubben; using her blog and a forthcoming documentary she co-produced with Michael Whiteacre (The Devil And Shelley Lubben) to expose the many contradictions, hypocrisies, and outright lies spewed forth by the Ministeress in her campaign to raze the adult sexual media “industry” (aka “pornography”) from the face of the earth.

Most of the reaction has been positive from most folks….but from those who actually believe in the actions of Ministeress Lubben, it’s a quite different story.

One of Shelley’s disciples decided to attempt to “correct” Lydia personally on her slamming of his mentor via an email…and while the personal assault on Ms. Lee speaks volumes about their attitudes towards those who don’t buy their story, it’s the overall attitude they have towards free thought that really stands out enough.

Lydia has pretty much dispatched this fool quite well at her blog, but I feel that it deserves a special touch.

Note that this email looks and sounds like the person using it is either using English as a second language, or perhaps is using Google Translate as a crutch. It may be a bit hard to decypher what he is saying due to mixed syntax….but I won’t let that get in the way.

To the beginning:

“Lisa and her blog that you may write, because I don’t think she’s capable enogh to do write what is published, specially against Shelley Lubben, is the classical point of view that’s trying to say that, for example, people who worked in that so called “industry” and resulted die, was nothing to do with porn, as if porn, prostitution, drug sonsumption and other things aren’t related. Maybe Mrs. Lubben didn’t contract herpes or any other STD “in the set”, but more of the people who perform porn do prostitutes her/himselfs before, during and after being part of that “bussiness”.

I’m assuming here that “Lisa” is either his/her misspelling of “Lydia”, or a reference to another blogger, and that the blog he is referring to is the response to Lubben’s “Porn Death” list of performers whom have passed away…with the not-so-thinly veiled implication that their consumption of porn or their profession was THE main factor contributing to their deaths. Of course, the fact that many other performers pass away from causes completely unrelated to their work; and so many other performers actually manage to live normal lives and get out unscathed, means totally NOTHING to our emailer. Maybe he and Lubben believe that Savannah, Colleen Applegate (the former Shauna Grant), John Holmes and all the others DESERVED to die because of their choice to do porn?? What about Anna Malle, who died in an auto accident?? I guess that God wanted her to be punished for doing porn, too?? But, if that was the case, then why did (S)He allow Nina Hartley to remain in porn for 37 damn years without so much of a major disease?? (And no, Ministeress Lubben, catching chlamydia four times isn’t enough.)

And this shit about porn performers “prostituting themselves” is so stupid. One more time, idiots: In actual prostitution, the ‘ho PAYS someone the ‘ho is paid by someone to have direct physical sex with THAT PERSON (or people).. In porn, the performer is paid to have sex with ANOTHER PERFORMER who is also getting paid to fuck, while the original payee WATCHES on, gets turned on, and, hopefully, gets him/herself off through masturbation. (Or, if more than one is watching and they are so encouraged, they engage in direct sex themselves….for free.). The person buying the porn does not actually engage in sex with the performers (mutual masturbation excluded, of course), which makes it fundamentally different from actually paying someone to fuck you. Both are considered different types of sex work, but there is a difference between the two.

[Addedum by Anthony: A slight edit of the preceding paragraph had to be done thanks to Lydia noticing a slight error of judgment on my part. ‘Ho’s don’t actually pay their clients; the clients pay them. My bad.]

Oh, and for the last Goddess damn time today: Sex workers DO NOT SELL THEIR BODIES. They offer sexual services to people willing to pay for them. They still own the body parts they use after they are used.

Also…it’s so nice that you judge “Lisa” to be unqualified to post on the subject because her opinion differs from yours…errrrrrrrr, because she doesn’t have the creds that Lubben apparently has from actually being a performer. I mean, doing all of 17 videos within a span of nine months and not having done a vid in 17 years sure qualifies her to be an expert, right?? Or…maybe it’s just the Bible that gives her the authority to hate on others who disagrees with her??

Finally…dewd, I understand that you might not be proficient in the English language, but at least attempt to mix in a spell checker. “Business”. “Himselves”. “Consumption”.”ON the set”. “Especially”. Goodness.

Besides, I don’t think that showing a video when there are exposed film, music and books industry people is an example that Mrs. Lubben is wrong, specially because those people may consumed porn or may had sex with a prostitute, things that are related to your “work”. I think that people deserves to be informed about porn “industry” and what it makes to brain´s people.

Now, this is in reference to a couple of YouTube videos made by some of Lydia Lee’s cohorts debunking the myth of porn star deaths being attributed solely to their use of porn by citing mainstream celebrities whom have passed away due to issues with drugs or accidents or otherwise. Our emailer dismisses them all, in effect saying that how do we know that they didn’t do porn or prostitution, and THAT contributed to their deaths?? I mean, who’s to say that that plane crash that killed Richie Havens, The Big Bopper, and the others was caused by the pilot reading copies of Playboy while steering the plane?? Or, that Rock Hudson’s ultimate demise due to complications from HIV-AIDS was due to his screwing every gay male porn performer in LA?? Or…that Janis Joplin was in fact a street hooker who got her fatal overdose of heroin while diving into Georgina Spelvin’s muff?? Of course, having sex with a prostitute or watching porn regularly does NOT necessarily result in someone getting OD’d or drunk or getting access to drugs…but why let the dog wag the tale here?? It’s all about fingering porn (and by extension sex beyond “God’s limits” of procreation and marriage) for all kinds of social and moral evils.

And as for what porn “makes brain’s people”….I’m sure that our emailer will not hesitate to quote Judith Reisman’s studies about how porn releases “erotoxins” in the brain that are even more addictive than crack cocaine, and that explains why we all go nutzoid at the sight of an exposed nipple or vulva or a male erect penis. Well that, and the natural “mental illness”.

Which leads me to the third and final paragraph of our emailer, which gets to the heart of things:

Finally, I dare you to consult a real source: DSM-IV R, a book that classified mental desease, and take a look over sexual disorders. I’m sure that you and your “people” could be classified in more that one of these mental illness, and this is a scientific book (good source of information) that that those kinds of behavior ARE illness, MENTAL illness.”

Ah, yes…when all else fails and you are getting your ass kicked intellectually and you just can’t defend your case against actual real life empirical evidence, always deem your opponent as mentally ill. Because, only mentally ill people could even suggest that people have free will and are perfectly capable of having their own experiences and not being browbeaten into guilt trips for engaging in the “wrong” kind of sex. Because, only those who suffer from “mental illness” are the ones who suggest that maybe porn actually serves a legitimate purpose in enabling and abetting human sexual fantasy. And, of course, because only “ex-sluts” and “ex-porn stars” now “redeemed” by “the Lord” like Shelley Lubben are accredited to speak “the truth” about the evil of porn, and all those with different experiences are simply either paid liars and propagandists or mentally ill or unwashed in need of Ministress Lubbens special “salvation”.

Riiiiiiight.

So…does that mean that people like Ted Haggard, Kirk Franklin, David Vitter, Larry Craig, and other well-known Christians who have fallen off the sexual wagon of late will be as villified for their failure to hold to their morals and principles?? You know, those same principles that they would impose by law, by force, and even by punishment of death or physical maiming on other, less powerful folk??

And also, riddle me this, emailer: How is it that those whom you claim to be the most stellar representatives of Christian moral salvation seem to retain the most corrosive and mostly un-Christian-like viewpoints?? Would Jesus be running around protecting priests who abuse children?? Would the Son of God have that much disrespect for people of other faiths that he would call for their deaths or departures?? And why are people engaging in consensual, mutually enjoyable sex among each other the ultimate sin and depravity, but people killing and dismembering and raping others for the right to seize their land and property considered a bit less of an obscenity??

The second you answer those questions, Emailer Whackjob, I may accept your right to lecture a woman like Lydia Lee on her choice of profession. Until then, fool, I will treat you like any other TeaKluxxer wingnut idiot who thinks that he owns the world just because he quotes selected Scriptures that reinforce his bigotry,

In my view, Lydia Lee is mentally fine as she is. You, on the other hand, may want to read up your own list of illnesses….specifically, the MORAL illnesses. That, and more lessons on proper English syntax.